skip to main content
10.1145/3328020.3353916acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Affordable patient record automation for small clinics: field testing the piClinic console

Published:04 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Small clinics in low-middle-income countries frequently lack the financial and technical resources to support patient-record automation---relying instead on paper records to track patient visits. Earlier successes introducing automated solutions into these clinics often eroded quickly after external support was withdrawn. The piClinic Console is designed to automate key aspects of patient information management in small, limited-resource clinics so as to introduce automation into a clinic in a way that the clinic can sustain with little or no additional support. Unlike previous efforts to scale down existing medical records systems for a small clinic, the piClinic Console was developed to include only the functions that benefit most from automation. The design was implemented to work on low-cost hardware to minimize initial cost and dependence on external support. After encouraging laboratory test results, this design was tested in four Honduran clinics to evaluate the users' experiences and the utility of the design. Clinic response was universally positive; however, field testing identified that success relied on accommodating the different roles in the clinic, supporting at least one printer, and enabling multiple users to access the system from multiple devices.

References

  1. Adnan Barjaktarevic. 2008. Specific implementation of electronic medical record in pediatrics practice - ProQuest. Acta Informatica Medica 16, 3 (Sept. 2008), 172--175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. HR Bernard. 2006. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches (fourth edition ed.). Altamira Press, Lanham, MD, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Stefan Hochwarter, Do Duy Cuong, Nguyen Thi Kim Chuc, and Mattias Larsson. 2014. Towards an electronic health record system in Vietnam: A core readiness assessment. Journal of Health Informatics in Developing Countries 8, 2 (Dec. 2014). http://www.jhidc.org/index.php/jhidc/article/view/129.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jayna M. Holroyd-Leduc, Diane Lorenzetti, Sharon E. Straus, Lindsay Sykes, and Hude Quan. 2011. The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 18, 6 (Nov. 2011), 732--737. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Eugenio G. Lopez and Karina M. Diaz. 2017. Electronic health record in bolivia and ICT: A perspective for Latin America. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence 4 (2017), 96--101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Pan American Health Organization. 2016. Electronic medical records in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Analysis of the current situation and recommendations for the Region. Technical Report. Pan American Health Organization. http://iris.paho.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/28210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Raspberry Pi Org. 2016. Raspberry Pi 3 Model B. https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-3-model-b/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jane Ritchie, Jane Lewis, Carol McNaughton Nicholls, and Rachel Ormston (Eds.). 2013. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers (2 edition ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. MJ Van Der Meijden, Huibert J Tange, J Troost, and Arie Hasman. 2003. Determinants of success of inpatient clinical information systems: a literature review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 10, 3 (2003), 235--243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Robert Watson. 2019. Field Notes, piClinic Console Field Test.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Robert B Watson. 2018. bridging the gap between paper patient records and EHR systems with the piClinic console. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC). IEEE, San Jose, CA, USA, 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Robert B Watson. 2018. Enriching technical communication education: Collaborating across disciplines and cultures to develop the piClinic Console. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication. ACM, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. World Health Organization. 2006. Electronic health records: Manual for developing countries. (2006). http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/207504/1/9290612177_eng.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Affordable patient record automation for small clinics: field testing the piClinic console

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        SIGDOC '19: Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication
        October 2019
        308 pages
        ISBN:9781450367905
        DOI:10.1145/3328020

        Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 4 October 2019

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • extended-abstract

        Acceptance Rates

        SIGDOC '19 Paper Acceptance Rate85of105submissions,81%Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader